From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

On the campaign trail and after he became prime minister, Mark Carney has repeatedly promised to make Canada an “energy superpower.” But, as evidenced by its first budget, the Carney government has simply reaffirmed the failed plans of the past decade and embraced the damaging energy policies of the Trudeau government.

First, consider the Trudeau government’s policy legacy. There’s Bill C-69 (the “no pipelines act”), the new electricity regulations (which aim to phase out natural gas as a power source starting this year), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limit Canadian exports to international markets), the cap on emissions only from the oil and gas sector (even though greenhouse gas emissions have the same effect on the environment regardless of the source), stricter regulations for methane emissions (again, impacting the oil and gas sector), and numerous “net-zero” policies.

According to a recent analysis, fully implementing these measures under Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan would result in 164,000 job losses and shrink Canada’s economic output by 6.2 per cent by the end of the decade compared to a scenario where we don’t have these policies in effect. For Canadian workers, this will mean losing $6,700 (annually, on average) by 2030.

Unfortunately, the Carney government’s budget offers no retreat from these damaging policies. While Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, he plans to “strengthen” the carbon tax on industrial emitters and the cost will be passed along to everyday Canadians—so the carbon tax will still cost you, it just won’t be visible.

There’s also been a lot of buzz over the possible removal of the oil and gas emissions cap. But to be clear, the budget reads: “Effective carbon markets, enhanced oil and gas methane regulations, and the deployment at scale of technologies such as carbon capture and storage would create the circumstances whereby the oil and gas emissions cap would no longer be required as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions.” Put simply, the cap remains in place, and based on the budget, the government has no real plans to remove it.

Again, the cap singles out one source (the oil and gas sector) of carbon emissions, even when reducing emissions in other sectors may come at a lower cost. For example, suppose it costs $100 to reduce a tonne of emissions from the oil and gas sector, but in another sector, it costs only $25 a tonne. Why force emissions reductions in a single sector that may come at a higher cost? An emission is an emission regardless of were it comes from. Moreover, like all these policies, the cap will likely shrink the Canadian economy. According to a 2024 Deloitte study, from 2030 to 2040, the cap will shrink the Canadian economy (measured by inflation-adjusted GDP) by $280 billion, and result in lower wages, job losses and a decline in tax revenue.

At the same time, the Carney government plans to continue to throw money at a range of “green” spending and tax initiatives. But since 2014, the combined spending and forgone revenue (due to tax credits, etc.) by Ottawa and provincial governments in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta totals at least $158 billion to promote the so-called “green economy.” Yet despite this massive spending, the green sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy has barely changed, from 3.1 per cent of Canada’s economic output in 2014 to 3.6 per cent in 2023.

In his first budget, Prime Minister Carney largely stuck to the Trudeau government playbook on energy and climate policy. Ottawa will continue to funnel taxpayer dollars to the “green economy” while restricting the oil and gas sector and hamstringing Canada’s economic potential. So much for becoming an energy superpower.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

Calgary’s new mayor, Jeromy Farkas, has promised to scrap “blanket rezoning”—a policy enacted by the city in 2024 that allows homebuilders to construct duplexes, townhomes and fourplexes in most neighbourhoods without first seeking the blessing of city hall. In other words, amid an affordability crunch, Mayor Farkas plans to eliminate a policy that made homebuilding easier and cheaper—which risks reducing housing choices and increasing housing costs for Calgarian families.

Blanket rezoning was always contentious. Debate over the policy back in spring 2024 sparked the longest public hearing in Calgary’s history, with many Calgarians airing concerns about potential impacts on local infrastructure, parking availability and park space—all important issues.

Farkas argues that blanket rezoning amounts to “ignoring the community” and that Calgarians should not be forced to choose between a “City Hall that either stops building, or stops listening.” But in reality, it’s virtually impossible to promise more community input on housing decisions and build more homes faster.

If Farkas is serious about giving residents a “real say” in shaping their neighbourhood’s future, that means empowering them to alter—or even block—housing proposals that would otherwise be allowed under blanket rezoning. Greater public consultation tends to give an outsized voice to development opponents including individuals and groups that oppose higher density and social housing projects.

Alternatively, if the mayor and council reform the process to invite more public feedback, but still ultimately approve most higher-density projects (as was the case before blanket rezoning), the consultation process would be largely symbolic.

Either way, homebuilders would face longer costlier approval processes—and pass those costs on to Calgarian renters and homebuyers.

It’s not only the number of homes that matters, but also where they’re allowed to be built. Under blanket rezoning, builders can respond directly to the preferences of Calgarians. When buyers want duplexes in established neighbourhoods or renters want townhomes closer to work, homebuilders can respond without having to ask city hall for permission.

According to Mayor Farkas, higher-density housing should instead be concentrated near transit, schools and job centres, with the aim of “reducing pressure on established neighbourhoods.” At first glance, that may sound like a sensible compromise. But it rests on the flawed assumption that politicians and planners should decide where Calgarians are allowed to live, rather than letting Calgarians make those choices for themselves. With blanket rezoning, new homes are being built in areas in response to buyer and renter demand, rather than the dictates of city hall. The mayor also seems to suggest that city hall should thwart some redevelopment in established neighbourhoods, limiting housing options in places many Calgarians want to live.

The stakes are high. Calgary is not immune to Canada’s housing crisis, though it has so far weathered it better than most other major cities. That success partly reflects municipal policies—including blanket rezoning—that make homebuilding relatively quick and inexpensive.

A motion to repeal blanket rezoning is expected to be presented to Calgary’s municipal executive committee on Nov. 17. If it passes, which is likely, the policy will be put to a vote during a council meeting on Dec. 15. As the new mayor and council weigh changes to zoning rules, they should recognize the trade-offs. Empowering “the community” may sound appealing, but it may limit the housing choices available to families in those communities. Any reforms should preserve the best elements of blanket rezoning—its consistency, predictability and responsiveness to the housing preferences of Calgarians—and avoid erecting zoning barriers that have exacerbated the housing crisis in other cities.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute